Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, every November, the Senate observes Native American Heritage Month to recognize the contributions of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians to the United States. Today, the promise of Native achievement burns brighter than ever. Just a few months ago, Joy Harjo, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, became the Nation's 23rd Poet Laureate. The first Native American appointed to the laureateship in the history of the Library of Congress, Ms. Harjo is an inspiration to the next generation of Native American writers, poets, and artists to share their diverse and powerful voices with the world. In this spirit, I am proud to have worked with Ms. Harjo, the Library of Congress, the Institute of American Indian Arts, and the Boys and Girls Club of America to host an exhibition of Native student poetry in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building this month. The display showcases Ms. Harjo's poetry alongside original works written by Autumn Abeyta, Ambrosia Morning Gun, Jewel Palmer, Paige Hannan, Lindsey Toya-Tosa, Delaney Keshena, and Rebekkah Autaubo--Native students attending schools in my home state of New Mexico and representing Tribes in New Mexico, Montana, New York, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. This year's inaugural exhibit represents the countless ways Native peoples have harnessed their strength, resilience, and unique perspectives to shape nearly every facet of our national identity. As the vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I work every day to achieve Indian Country's priorities and uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities to Indian Country. I hope this month will serve as an opportunity for this entire body to reexamine how we can strengthen our commitment to Native peoples and recommit to our shared responsibilities.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I just want to follow on the comments by my good friend Senator Shaheen with regard to Kay Hagan. We came to the Senate together with Senator Shaheen. We were all in that class of 2008. It was a big class. We traveled extensively with Kay Hagan. We got to know her very well. It was really good to hear--I talked to her husband Chip on the phone. We call him Chip; he is Charles. He told me that up to the very last, she was extremely busy. They were traveling around North Carolina. They were doing things. She actually had a very special visit with Vice President Biden before she passed away. Our heart goes out to the whole family--to the three children. We very much miss her and will miss her a lot. We missed her a lot in the Senate. We are going to miss her. I will put in a more extensive statement about Kay Hagan. Amendment No. 1209 Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Lee amendment and efforts to undermine the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This amendment would prohibit the Department of Interior from using land and water conservation funds to acquire Federal lands and waters. The underlying bill actually increases funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $30 million, and it does so with deep bipartisan support from a majority of Senators. The crucial point here is that this bill passed the Appropriations Committee 31 to 0, so this is a broadly supported program and a broadly supported bill. I urge the Senate to send another strong message today to support the LWCF. There are many bipartisan land-acquisition priorities that are funded by this bill. They include things like funds to improve access to the Aravaipa Canyon in Arizona; preserve wildlife habitat in the Everglades Headwaters and St. Marks Refuges in Florida, I would let the Presiding Officer know. There is also money to protect the Palo Alto Battlefield in Texas and other historic battlefield sites, as well as funds to expand the El Malpais National Monument in my home State of New Mexico. These are just a few of the projects that our constituents back home are expecting the Department to fund. They would all be stopped in their tracks if this amendment were adopted. We need LWCF to establish better access for Americans to their own public lands. This program works with private landowners and willing sellers to continue to protect special places for generations to come. I know a bipartisan majority of this body understands that, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me to defeat this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to former Senator Kay Hagan, who left us this week, much too early, at the age of 66. Kay and I entered the Senate together, in 2009. Our class of freshman Democratic Senators was very close, and I spent a lot of time with Kay. She was warm and vivacious and 100 percent committed to her home State of North Carolina. Kay was the first woman Democratic Senator elected from North Carolina, and she beat a formidable incumbent. By the time she entered the Senate, she had already gained a reputation in her State as a leader and a fighter, having served in the State senate for 10 years. Kay was a woman of great strength, grace, and accomplishment. She was a lawyer, a banker, a legislator, a mother of three, and grandmother of five. Kay came to the Senate to get things done for North Carolina and the Nation. To be effective, she worked across the aisle to find solutions to the everyday problems facing Americans. When she entered the Senate, she said, ``We have a Congress now that is kind of divided, and I want to be one of the ones that helps bring people together.'' Kay was a woman of principle. She was a key vote in support of the Affordable Care Act--that resulted in millions of Americans gaining access to health care. She stood in favor of choice for women, gay marriage, equal pay for women, the Violence Against Women Act, and expanding background checks on gun sales. She was a fierce defender of military families, of which there are so many in North Carolina, and served on the Armed Services Committee. In hearings, she pressed the Army on the unexplained deaths of 11 infants at Fort Bragg and pushed for full disclosure of documents related to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. And before many others, she supported women serving in combat zones. ``Anybody's who qualified should be able to serve,'' she said. Kay fought for the ``little guy.'' She used her banking expertise to fight against payday lending. She wanted a fairer minimum wage, so families can support themselves. She supported job creation and small business. ``For me in North Carolina, it's jobs, jobs, jobs,'' she said. She understood that big money in politics was drowning the voice of regular Americans and that access to the ballot box is being blocked. After her Senate loss, Kay went on to serve as resident fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University with a focus on money in politics and voting rights, saying, ``We need to encourage young folks across the country to go exercise their constitutional right to vote. It is something that our Constitution gives us, but not enough people exercise it.'' Kay wanted to inspire young people--especially young women--to vote, to be informed, to run for office. Kay did inspire. And she leaves us with a legacy of integrity, commitment, and civility. I was proud to be her colleague, but I was even more proud to be her friend, and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I am very happy to be joined on the floor with Senator Merkley, who has worked with me for a long time on the For the People Act, and we will both be speaking here in that order. The American people sent us here to do the people's business, but under Republican leadership, the Senate is not responding to what the American people need and want. We are not solving the kitchen table issues the American people elected us to face every day. For example, we are not making sure every American has access to affordable, quality healthcare. We need to lower costs and take on Big Pharma, and we are not doing that. We are not passing commonsense gun safety legislation that 90 percent of the voters support in order to stop shootings in the schools, on our streets, and in our communities. If we can't pass bills that save children's lives, our democracy is not working. We are not even taking on the most pressing issue that faces our planet--climate change. Younger generations are urging us to act, but this body is running away from taking any action. The number of gravestones in the majority leader's legislative graveyard--where urgent bills are stalled and buried--steadily mounts. Bills keep going into the majority leader's graveyard, but Congress will not and cannot do the people's business when the bills to fix our democracy also rest in that graveyard. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the For the People Act, H.R. 1. It passed it in March. At the same time, I introduced the Senate companion to the For the People Act, which has the support of all 47 Democrats and Independents in the Senate. Yet, along with a pile of other good and necessary bills, Leader McConnell has buried the For the People Act. The For the People Act repairs our broken campaign finance system, opens up the ballot box to all Americans, and lays waste to the corruption in Washington. These are all reforms that the American people support. Why will the Senate majority leader not let us vote on them? There is hardly a day that goes by that we don't see evidence of why it is so important that we pass the For the People Act. Foreign influence in our elections is only growing, and 2016 was just the start. Associates of the President's personal lawyer have been indicted for laundering foreign money into our elections. The President's lawyer is under investigation for the same. Political ads from foreign sources are flooding social media. Our bill fights foreign tampering in our democracy. It prohibits domestic corporations with foreign control from spending money in U.S. elections. It cracks down on shell companies that are used in order to launder foreign money into our elections. Our bill makes sure that American elections are decided by American voters without there being foreign interference. It protects our democratic institutions, increases oversight over election vendors, requires paper ballots, and supports security upgrades for States' voting systems. This body should have gotten serious about election security immediately after the 2016 election, but under the majority leader's direction, we have not done that. At a time of increased foreign interference, the President has invited foreign assistance in any way it might benefit him personally, politically, or financially. Day in and day out, we see this President taking full advantage of his position to benefit himself, his family, and his political prospects. The President never divested. He never formed a blind trust for his assets. Every day, we see foreign officials and foreign nationals currying favor with the President and padding his pocketbook, wining and dining at the Trump properties. Indeed, Mr. Giuliani and his two close associates lunched at the Trump International Hotel, right here in Washington, just before these two individuals were picked up at the Washington Dulles International Airport with their one-way tickets abroad. The same individuals have been charged with illegally funneling foreign money into our democracy. In addition, the President only relented from hosting the next G7 summit at his Doral resort in Miami after the Republicans told him that even they couldn't defend that. All the while, the President calls the emoluments clause--intended to stop these very abuses--phony. The For the People Act requires the President to fully disclose his or her financial interests and disclose the last 10 years of his or her tax returns, which is something this President has never done. It requires the President to fully divest and transfer all of his or her assets to a blind trust. The American people deserve to know their President is acting in the national interest, not in his or her own self-interest, and not being subjected to leverage by foreign interests that seek to corrupt our electoral process. The intelligence community has been very clear with its disturbing warnings. Adverse foreign interests are actively trying to manipulate our democracy. They did so in 2016 as the Mueller report and prosecutions from that investigation confirmed. They will try to do so again in 2020. We are watching it happen in realtime before our eyes. These foreign interests are not red or blue--not Democratic or Republican. They will use whomever they can to pursue their interests-- interests that are often opposed to ours or are simply corrupt. We must unite in the defense of our electoral system and in the defense of the sanctity of our democracy. Like the other bills the Democrats are seeking to pass this week, the For the People Act would provide that protection. The House's version, H.R. 1, would do so as well. We want to partner with the Republicans in these efforts, and we are open to negotiation. Yet, while the American people demand that we fix our out-of-control campaign finance system, make sure elections are secure, and root out the corruption in Washington, bills to address these issues gather dust on the leader's desk. I, for one, will not stop fighting for the comprehensive democratic reforms that we need and for bringing power back to the people--where the Founders intended it to be. Our democracy will always be worth the fight. Once again, Senator Merkley has been a great partner to work with on the For the People Act. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 949, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this bill does just the opposite. It supports States. It doesn't take over from States. The States have asked us for help when it comes to actions like cybersecurity and other things that are happening out there. It roots out foreign interference in our elections which happens in Federal elections and happens in State elections and, I think, can only be done at the Federal level. The distinguished Senator from Missouri says that these things that are being required, States are adopting all of these. States are moving very aggressively forward with things like automatic registration and moving to make it easier to vote, and we are trying to lay a consistent basis so the States know how to operate. So this is a good bill. It is a solid bill. It puts the American people back in charge. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, it is great to be here with Senator Murkowski. I rise to speak in support of the fiscal year 2020 Interior appropriations bill, which is now before the Senate. I want to begin by thanking my chairman and partner in this endeavor, Senator Murkowski, for her working with me to produce a very fine bill that was crafted on a bipartisan basis. It is extraordinary that this bill is on the floor for the second consecutive year after many years when we were not able to move the bill by regular order. Much of the credit goes to her leadership and her commitment to working through tough issues in a fair and a pragmatic way. One of the reasons I am particularly proud of moving a bipartisan bill is the importance this bill has for my home State of New Mexico. This bill reflects the long tradition we have in my State of working across the aisle to support conservation priorities. It includes a number of important accomplishments for the State, including language to protect the sacred landscape of Chaco Canyon, along with funding to support the Valles Caldera National Preserve and the new resources to clean up the PFAS contamination in New Mexico and across the country. This bill is also an important reflection of why the work that Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy did earlier this year to secure a 2-year budget agreement is so important. The Interior bill delivers roughly 2.5 percent more funding than last year once you factor in the increase we received under the budget agreement and the savings we picked up from using the first year of the wildfire cap adjustment. The funds in this bill allow this body to make solid increases to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to protect and manage national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. I know many hope we can do better on the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding, and so do I. While I am pleased about the increase in this bill above the enacted level, I will be working to improve the LWCF's funding when we conference with the House. But our efforts in the short term should not take away from the goal we have set on a bipartisan basis to provide permanent, mandatory, full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That remains a top priority for me, and I think we can and should accomplish that in this Congress. The bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country. Many of those were mentioned by Chairman Murkowski, and we believe there are really solid things that have been done there--investments in Indian Country, providing a 4-percent increase for the Indian Health Service and a 2-percent increase for programs funded through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. We provide $2.25 billion in new firefighting funds using the wildfire cap adjustment, which means that these funds are finally, for the first time, provided without requiring reductions to other important programs. It also means that the Forest Service will not be forced to raid nonfire programs to pay for firefighting needs without knowing whether those funds will be repaid. The bill increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 2 percent in order to support new bipartisan infrastructure priorities and to make important investments in regional cleanup programs. The EPA is still struggling after years of budget cuts, but I am proud that our bill includes the best EPA budget in a decade and completely rejects the billions in cuts proposed by the Trump administration. It also provides vital resources to our counties by fully funding the payment in lieu of taxes program--a program that supports over $40 million per year in local government services in New Mexico. This bill boosts funding for cultural agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, as well as the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art, and the Smithsonian Institution. Specifically, I am very proud that we were able to increase the budgets of NEA and NEH by $2 million each. These funds provide a critical boost to local arts and humanities programs in small towns across the United States--programs that create countless jobs and ensure economic vitality in communities like those in New Mexico. I am also pleased that the bill contains no new funding requested by the administration for the Interior Department reorganization, including the efforts to dismantle the Bureau of Land Management. This bill sends a strong message that the administration needs to push ``pause'' and work with Members on both sides of the aisle. It is vitally important that we now have both Chambers on record on this important issue, and I hope the administration hears us loud and clear. I appreciate that the bill contains no new poison pill riders for the second year in a row, which is all the more notable given the number of difficult issues that we confront through the EPA and the Federal land management agencies. I want to thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Murkowski for their commitment to moving a clean Interior bill. That said, I do want to note that the bill does continue several provisions that I oppose, including provisions dealing with the lead content of ammunition, biomass energy policy, Clean Water Act exemptions, and Clean Air Act exemptions. I also oppose a troubling provision in the bill that weakens protections for the sage grouse. Given the bad-faith efforts by this administration to weaken efforts to protect the sage grouse, it is extremely shortsighted for Congress to continue to block protections under the Endangered Species Act for the species when the administration has failed to hold up its end of the bargain. These provisions are contrary to the spirit of the no poison pill riders agreement. Thankfully, they are not in the underlying House bill, H.R. 3055, and I expect to have some frank conversations as part of the conference process about the need to remove them and the need to include a number of other important curbs on this administration included in that legislation. So I want to be on record that in the conference, I will be fighting to keep the House's positions on several of these very important items. I look forward to debating this bill, considering amendments, and ultimately passing it with a bipartisan vote so that we can proceed to a conference with the House. I also want to express my personal thanks to the majority subcommittee staff--Emy Lesofski, Nona McCoy, and Lucas Agnew--for working with me and my staff. This is Emy's first bill serving as the clerk of the subcommittee, and I congratulate her on this milestone as the Senate takes up the bill. Their work is a great credit to Chairman Murkowski and Chairman Shelby. I would also like to thank my staff--Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, Melissa Zimmerman, and Faisal Amin--for all of their hard work to accommodate the priorities of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that Chairman Murkowski and I worked on was trying to handle any request that came to us from wherever in the Senate and deal with it in a bipartisan way. So I very much appreciate working hard with Senator Murkowski to get this bill done and to move it on to conference with the House and to get it into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last month, both the Senate and the House of Representatives resolved, on a bipartisan basis, to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency along our southern border. I was proud to lead the charge before this body to terminate that declaration--a declaration the President is using to raid congressionally appropriated military construction funds to build this border wall. Plain and simple, the President's emergency declaration is an end-run around Congress's spending powers and the Constitution. Last week, a Federal district judge agreed and concluded that the President's declaration is ``unlawful.'' Article I, section 9, of the Constitution could not be clearer. It reads: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .'' The Founders gave Congress the power to appropriate--the power of the purse. This is one of the most consequential powers. Congress has this power to make sure that decisions about how public dollars are spent have widespread support and are not the product of an extreme minority, let alone one man. Our power to appropriate is part of the system of checks and balances built into our Constitution. The Founders made sure that the three branches of government exercised their own separate and limited powers, and they made sure that no one branch and no one person could exercise too much power, especially over the use of taxpayer money. The President's emergency declaration is an unconstitutional power grab. Congress has not fully funded his requests for border wall funding. We set different budget priorities. Our priorities include the $3.6 billion worth of 127 military construction projects across 23 States, 3 Territories, and 20 countries, and the President canceled them. But this President will not accept Congress's judgment or our constitutional authority. His emergency declaration is an exercise of power that is just not his under the Constitution. Our system of checks and balances only works if each branch has the will to check the other branch if there is encroachment. We have seen some good bipartisan pushback, but this is the point where we need more of that. It is up to Congress, the legislative branch, to guard our constitutional authority and to exercise the will to do so. The President has now vetoed Congress's resolution, and it is up to this body to assert our constitutional authority and override that veto. Not only is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake, but the President's emergency declaration has real life impacts--impacts to our national security and impacts to the 23 States whose projects are now gone. My home State of New Mexico is one of those 23 States. We are home to two military bases that will be hit by the President's raid on military construction projects to fund his wall. Scuttled is an $85 million project at Holloman Air Force Base that would improve drone pilot training facilities that are aging, have sinkholes, and bat infestation. Training our military to pilot drones is mission critical in this day and age. The Air Force is battling a shortage of these pilots. At White Sands Missile Range, a $40 million project designed to replace an aging and fire-damaged information systems facility has been cut. This project was to prepare the range to take on the next generation of missiles and weapons testing, including future hypersonic testing. Twenty-two other States are losing military construction projects, from Alabama to Arizona, North Carolina to Texas, and Maine to Florida. In Utah, the Air Force has sought a new control center at Hill Air Force Base to replace ``structurally deficient'' and dilapidated World War II-era warehouses for mission control. In Louisiana, the Air National Guard sought to replace an aircraft parking ramp in a New Orleans facility that exposes the public to an ``unacceptable risk'' of being impacted by an explosive accident. In Indiana, Army servicemembers have worked in violation of safety standards for handling explosives and need additional space for munitions. In Kentucky, the military seeks to repair ``substandard, deficient, inadequate, and undersized facilities'' at a middle school at Fort Campbell that ``impair the overall education program'' for the children of servicemembers. Not only is New Mexico one of the States hit by the President's canceling important military construction projects, but we are one of four States that borders Mexico. We are ground zero for the President's border wall and the havoc it will wreak on our communities, our way of life, the local economies, landowners, and the environment. New Mexico and Mexico share a 180-mile border. This border passes through three counties--Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo--that are home to 11 percent of our State's population. A majority of the population in those counties is Hispanic. We have vibrant communities along the border and near the border, including our second largest city, Las Cruces, 45 minutes from Mexico. We have two ports of entry--in Columbus and Santa Teresa--that are bustling with commerce, international trade, and hundreds who cross the border daily to visit family and friends, to go to school, and to shop. I know our border communities. I can tell you for a fact, there is no justification for the diversion of military construction funding away from our troops and to this wall. Now, I support smart border security and have voted many times to fund smart investment. New Mexico knows what real border security is: well-funded, well-trained, adequate resources; mobile assets; surveillance technology combined with well-staffed ports of entry that welcome commerce, visitors, and also asylum-seekers seeking refuge from horrific persecution. The President's wall, at upward of $25 million per mile, is not a smart investment. It is antiquated and is not designed for today's challenges. This wasteful approach contrasts to the sound investment we made in the Columbus port of entry. Commerce, personal vehicle traffic, and foot traffic have increased exponentially over the years. Customs and Border Protection needed more secure facilities. We pushed to expand and update this New Mexico port. For $90 million, we greatly enhanced border security and added to economic growth. Now, that is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars. In New Mexico, we are concerned about the land grab underway by this administration. They are pushing to expropriate private lands for the President's wall, and there are lots of landowners who don't want their lands cut in half or made unusable. We can't get answers from the administration about what they are doing, and so Senator Heinrich and I, along with Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin, requested the Government Accountability Office to investigate the number of citizens who could have their land seized, the cost of property acquisitions, and the time it will take. I am pleased the GAO has opened an inquiry. Not only is there concern that the Trump administration will skirt eminent domain laws, but there is a real threat that environmental laws will be tossed out the window in the administration's rush to fulfill the President's campaign promise to build 500 miles of wall. The wall would run through hundreds of miles of untouched, pristine lands that are home to wildlife like antelope, deer, and javelina. A wall will tear up these lands and their vegetation, cause erosion and flooding, and cut off migratory paths for wildlife. The Department of the Interior is set to transfer 500 acres of lands in New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the Army for the President's wall, and 213 of those acres are in my State. The Department of the Interior is supposed to protect our natural resources, not endanger them with a border wall that will compromise their ecological value, destroy habitat connectivity, and harm wildlife. The President's wall and his divisive rhetoric toward immigrants is deeply offensive to New Mexicans. We have strong family, cultural, and economic ties to Mexico. We are a proud multicultural State. Our diversity does not divide us; it defines us. It is our strength. This body holds the power of the purse, not the President. Now is the time to affirm this constitutional power and affirm the appropriations decisions we have made for our own States and the Nation. We should override the President's veto and make sure that legitimate national security interests are protected by seeing that the 127 military construction projects go forward on schedule. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce Impaired Driving for Everyone Act of 2019 or RIDE Act of 2019. I would like to thank my co-sponsor, Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who joins me on this important bill--a bill that will help end drunk driving and prevent thousands of fatalities and injuries across the nation. While we have made progress over the last several decades to reduce drunk driving on our roads, it is still a national tragedy. In 2017, the latest year for which we have statistics, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 10,874 person were killed on American roads by a drunk driver. That's one death every 48 minutes. And most tragically: every single one of those 10,874 deaths could have been prevented. Traffic fatalities due to drunk driving account for one-third of all such fatalities. Yet, drunk drivers have only a two percent chance of being caught. And one study found that the average drunk driver has driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. The RIDE Act aims to make sure these drivers do not hit the road in the first place. I'm not new to this fight. When I was Attorney General of New Mexico in the 1990's, our State had one of the highest DWI rates in the Nation. Then, on Christmas Eve in 1992, a drunk driver killed a mother and her three young daughters as he sped down the highway the wrong way going 90 miles per hour. That tragedy galvanized me and many others in our State. I worked to impose stronger penalties for repeat offenders, impose a lower legal limit for intoxication, and close drive-up liquor windows. Those efforts and the efforts of many others across New Mexico helped bring down the number of alcohol-related fatalities from 460 in 1992 to 131 in 2017. But that's 131 too many. And so we have more work to do in New Mexico and across the Nation. I've worked many years to fund development of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety or DADSS technology--technology that prevents drivers impaired above the legal limit from ever taking the wheel. When I first started advocating for this technology, it seemed far-fetched to some, out of reach. But, now--it's being road-tested and within our grasp. The RIDE Act builds on the $50 million dollars Congress has appropriated since 2008 by appropriating $5 million per year toward drunk driver detection technology during fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The bill will fund the technology transfer of this software to ready it for installation and testing in vehicles. At the same time the Federal government has moved to introduce this technology, some private automobile manufacturers are also developing technology of their own for installation in their vehicles. They are to be applauded. NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, of which every major automobile manufacturer is a member, have engaged in a decade- long public-private partnership to research, manufacture, and test equipment to make vehicles inoperable if alcohol is present in a person's breath. They are engaged now in calibration to ensure that a vehicle will be inoperable only if a driver is above the legal limit. NHTSA and ACTS are working with the states of Maryland and Virginia to test this technology. Real world testing is essential--which is why the RIDE Act will empower the Federal General Services Administration to incorporate anti-drunk driving software into its fleet on a pilot basis. Finally, the RIDE Act requires the NHTSA to promulgate rules to require installation of advanced drunk driving prevention technology in all new vehicles not later than two years after enactment of the bill. Automobile manufacturers will have two model years to comply with the rule. This means the RIDE Act sets out about a four year window to prevent drunk driving in all new vehicles. This tremendous goal is within reach. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleague, Senator Scott. The RIDE Act should have strong bipartisan support. Drunk drivers don't discriminate on the basis of political party. I urge all our colleagues to join us in this important fight against drunk driving and the devastation that it causes.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce Impaired Driving for Everyone Act of 2019 or RIDE Act of 2019. I would like to thank my co-sponsor, Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who joins me on this important bill--a bill that will help end drunk driving and prevent thousands of fatalities and injuries across the nation. While we have made progress over the last several decades to reduce drunk driving on our roads, it is still a national tragedy. In 2017, the latest year for which we have statistics, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 10,874 person were killed on American roads by a drunk driver. That's one death every 48 minutes. And most tragically: every single one of those 10,874 deaths could have been prevented. Traffic fatalities due to drunk driving account for one-third of all such fatalities. Yet, drunk drivers have only a two percent chance of being caught. And one study found that the average drunk driver has driven drunk 87 times before being arrested. The RIDE Act aims to make sure these drivers do not hit the road in the first place. I'm not new to this fight. When I was Attorney General of New Mexico in the 1990's, our State had one of the highest DWI rates in the Nation. Then, on Christmas Eve in 1992, a drunk driver killed a mother and her three young daughters as he sped down the highway the wrong way going 90 miles per hour. That tragedy galvanized me and many others in our State. I worked to impose stronger penalties for repeat offenders, impose a lower legal limit for intoxication, and close drive-up liquor windows. Those efforts and the efforts of many others across New Mexico helped bring down the number of alcohol-related fatalities from 460 in 1992 to 131 in 2017. But that's 131 too many. And so we have more work to do in New Mexico and across the Nation. I've worked many years to fund development of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety or DADSS technology--technology that prevents drivers impaired above the legal limit from ever taking the wheel. When I first started advocating for this technology, it seemed far-fetched to some, out of reach. But, now--it's being road-tested and within our grasp. The RIDE Act builds on the $50 million dollars Congress has appropriated since 2008 by appropriating $5 million per year toward drunk driver detection technology during fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The bill will fund the technology transfer of this software to ready it for installation and testing in vehicles. At the same time the Federal government has moved to introduce this technology, some private automobile manufacturers are also developing technology of their own for installation in their vehicles. They are to be applauded. NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, of which every major automobile manufacturer is a member, have engaged in a decade- long public-private partnership to research, manufacture, and test equipment to make vehicles inoperable if alcohol is present in a person's breath. They are engaged now in calibration to ensure that a vehicle will be inoperable only if a driver is above the legal limit. NHTSA and ACTS are working with the states of Maryland and Virginia to test this technology. Real world testing is essential--which is why the RIDE Act will empower the Federal General Services Administration to incorporate anti-drunk driving software into its fleet on a pilot basis. Finally, the RIDE Act requires the NHTSA to promulgate rules to require installation of advanced drunk driving prevention technology in all new vehicles not later than two years after enactment of the bill. Automobile manufacturers will have two model years to comply with the rule. This means the RIDE Act sets out about a four year window to prevent drunk driving in all new vehicles. This tremendous goal is within reach. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleague, Senator Scott. The RIDE Act should have strong bipartisan support. Drunk drivers don't discriminate on the basis of political party. I urge all our colleagues to join us in this important fight against drunk driving and the devastation that it causes.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, thank you for the recognition. The Constitution demands that ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' Like any other matter, it is Congress's power and responsibility to determine how much taxpayer money is spent on the President's request for a border wall. Like most Presidents, he didn't get every dollar he wanted. Now the President, through a sham national emergency declaration, is taking $3.6 billion of funds we appropriated for military construction projects to pay for his wall. The real question is not whether the President is usurping our article I power to appropriate; he is, no doubt about it. The real question is, Will we do something about it? Today I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of our resolution terminating the President's national emergency declaration. Madam President, starting off the debate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following materials: a joint declaration from former national security officials outlining why the President's border emergency does not qualify under the National Emergencies Act and a September 18, 2019, Washington Post article outlining the dire outcomes warned by the Pentagon if the military construction projects don't go forward.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, with that, I yield to Senator Murray.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I very much appreciate being joined on the floor by my colleagues at this critical time in history. Senator Shaheen just spoke. We also had Senator Murray and Senator Leahy down here. This issue will come to a head tomorrow. We are really at a crossroads. This body can continue to allow the President to subvert our constitutional authority to appropriate, or we can take back our power of the purse and exercise it as the Founders intended. The issue before us is not partisan; it is constitutional. If we don't put the Constitution above party, above politics, we might as well pack up our bags and go home. The voters did not send us here to shirk our responsibilities. History will not be kind to us if we allow the Executive to run roughshod over our constitutional authority. For the second time, we have introduced a bipartisan resolution to terminate the President's national emergency declaration along our southern border. I thank Senators Collins and Shaheen for once again joining this resolution and affirming their commitment to the Constitution. Our first vote on this resolution in March passed 59 to 41. We had strong bipartisan support because the President's emergency declaration is clearly an end run around Congress. We have the power to bring this resolution back every 6 months. I hope we can add to our majority this time because what were once fears about a so-called emergency in March have become a stark reality in September. While I firmly oppose the President's approach on immigration, this vote is not about whether you oppose or support that approach. In March, a Republican Senator wrote in conviction about the President's emergency declaration: It is my responsibility to be a steward of the article I branch, to preserve the separation of powers and to curb the kind of executive overreach that Congress has allowed to fester for the better part of the past century. I stood by that principle during the Obama administration, and I stand by it now. We all have another opportunity to stand with the Constitution and to object to a President actively diverting billions in defense funding for a political purpose. Congress, not the President, was given the power of the purse to make sure taxpayer money was spent on projects with broad public support. We have different views in Congress, but as a whole, we have responded to the American people, and we have not appropriated all the funds the President has sought for his wall. But instead of allowing Congress to decide on spending, which is what the Constitution envisions, the President caused the longest shutdown in American history to get his wall. That 35-day shutdown caused a lot of pain and anxiety for many Federal workers and contractors and their families in New Mexico and across the Nation. When the shutdown didn't work, the President issued his emergency declaration. If we allow this President to issue an emergency declaration to get funding for his wall, we will be setting a dangerous precedent--a precedent that could be used by future Presidents on issues my Republican colleagues surely wouldn't like. The President is now taking $3.6 billion from 127 military construction projects that we have approved and funded. We all know the rigor with which these projects have been vetted, scrutinized, and approved. According to the Pentagon, these projects are necessary for national security and military readiness, necessary to ensure the safety of our men and women in uniform and their children. In other words, they are not projects simply designed to fulfill a campaign slogan. Two projects in New Mexico are on the chopping block, and both are critical. One is an $85 million drone pilot training center at Holloman Air Force Base to replace a facility that is falling apart, and the other is a $40 million secure information technology facility at White Sands Missile Range. Both of those are gone. In Utah, the Air Force has sought a new control center at Hill Air Force Base to replace ``structurally deficient, dilapidated World War II-era warehouses'' for mission control. In Louisiana, the Air National Guard sought to replace an aircraft parking ramp in a New Orleans facility that exposes the public to ``unacceptable risks'' of being impacted by an explosive accident. In Indiana, Army servicemembers have worked in violation of safety standards for handling explosives and need additional space from munitions. In Kentucky, the military seeks to repair substandard, deficient, inadequate, and undersized facilities at a majority school at Fort Campbell that impairs the overall education program for the children of servicemembers. Back in March, we worried that this would happen, but now it is a reality. Our men and women in uniform and their children are paying for the wall. And if we do not stand up and stop it today, it will happen again and again. This is unacceptable, and I believe it is unlawful and unconstitutional. We here in the Senate have decided to fund these projects and others in 23 States instead of a border wall, and with good reason. Some in Congress are calling for us to backfill 127 projects and reappropriate the funds for them. Backfilling does not solve the problem. It does not repair the constitutional violation. It only gives license to the President to continue raiding funds we have already appropriated for military construction projects. Unless we stop the emergency, the backfilled money will be subject to being raided again. If your house is robbed, it is foolish to buy new valuables without putting a new lock on the door. Canceling these 127 projects is not just a one-off; we all know the President fully intends to keep it. It has already been reported that if the President doesn't get the $5 billion he has requested for his wall in 2020, the administration plans to take another $3.6 billion from the Pentagon's construction budget. I will come back in a minute. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, we are at a crucial point in our democracy, with a big decision to be made. Tomorrow, we can correct this unconstitutional violation by the President of the United States of taking military money, military readiness money, national security money, and moving it over for a border wall. Canceling these 127 projects is not just a one-off. Let's remember that. We all know the President fully intends to keep at it. It has already been reported that if the President doesn't get the $5 billion he has requested for his wall in 2020, the next budget year, the administration plans to take another $3.6 billion from the Pentagon's construction budget. This President will not stop raiding funds we have appropriated, unless we stop him and terminate his sham emergency declaration. The careful planning for the 127 canceled projects contrasts sharply with the administration's haphazard rush to build the President's wall. The President wants 500 miles of wall before the 2020 election. To do so, the administration may need to skirt the Federal procurement process and aggressively take lands away from private landowners through eminent domain. Don't worry, says the President to his staff: I will pardon you if you break any laws. This is no way to run a government, and, certainly, no way to spend taxpayer dollars. Don't get me wrong. I support strong border security. We need well- trained officers, mobile assets, surveillance technology, and adequate resources. But a multibillion dollar wall is wasteful, ineffective, and offensive. Now, I know some in this Chamber disagree with that opinion. The place to debate and decide how we spend taxpayer dollars to keep our border secure is in the Appropriations Committee, its various subcommittees, and on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution says. James Madison wrote in Federalist 84: ``An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced . . . that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.'' It is time for this body to check and restrain the executive branch. The President is invading our constitutional prerogative. He is not a despot. His constitutional powers are limited. It is up to us to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as we swore an oath to do, and to do the work we were elected to do. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise to urge this body to protect the Constitution, to defend the separation of powers, and to prevent an unauthorized, unconstitutional war with Iran. The Constitution is clear. Under our article I powers, the Constitution spells out that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. The Founders debated which branch of government should be given the solemn power to wage war. Entering into battle had been the personal prerogative of Kings, and Kings had shown that they would bankrupt their countries and risk lives because of self-serving, power-seeking feuds. Therefore, our Constitution's Founders placed the decision to go to war with the people's representatives. They wanted any decision to wage war to reflect the will of the people. They deliberately rejected giving this most consequential decision only to the President. Yet, despite the clarity of the Constitution, President Trump insists--without any equivocation--that he does not need congressional approval to engage in military hostilities against Iran, and now, instead of working with the U.S. Congress, he is publicly deferring to the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our President said we are waiting for Saudi Arabia to say ``under what terms we would proceed.'' When discussing retaliation for the attack on a Saudi oil-processing facility, our President has praised the Saudis as good customers who ``[pay] cash.'' President Trump explained further as follows: [T]he fact is that the Saudis are going to have a lot of involvement in this if we decide to do something. They'll be very much involved, and that includes payment. And they understand that fully. Does this Congress think the patriotic men and women of our military are mercenaries at the service of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I reject that idea completely. When a President is threatening a military attack because of a foreign King's oil interests, it is well past time for Congress to assert its institutional authority. Congress needs to make it clear: The President cannot begin a war with Iran without coming here first, coming here to the Congress. In June, we voted on a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that prohibited any war with Iran unless authorized by Congress. Getting a vote on the Udall-Kaine-Paul amendment was historic, and a bipartisan majority of Senators voted to support our amendment that day. The House of Representatives has sent us its NDAA, which includes a bipartisan provision prohibiting war against Iran without congressional approval. The NDAA is now going to a Senate-House conference committee. The conference committee must adopt our amendment that prohibits unauthorized war against Iran. Since our vote in June, tensions with Iran have not subsided; they have only increased. The threat of miscalculation and unauthorized war has only gotten more serious. This week, the President, on Twitter, is threatening that the U.S. military is ``locked and loaded'' on behalf of the Saudi Kingdom. Iran's behavior in the region is highly problematic, but Saudi Arabia's oil interests do not determine whether the United States goes to war. Congress determines that, Congress and Congress only, based on our national interests. Rather than threats of war, the right move is active diplomacy to lower tensions in the region. We are at this point in the Middle East because of the Trump administration's failed policies. Its unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, its maximum pressure policy, its abandonment of diplomacy--these policies are only causing more chaos in the region and doing nothing to advance U.S. interests. When the President unilaterally withdrew from the Iran agreement in May 2018, against the advice of his military and intelligence Chiefs, he promised he would get us a better deal. The deal we had in place secured for the United States and the world an Iran that would not develop nuclear weapons. It was a deal that had strict verification requirements and a deal his advisers and outside independent groups said Iran was complying with. It has now been 16 months since the President tore up that deal and said he could get us a better one. Well, the President's supposed deal- making prowess has only produced increased tensions, bringing us to the brink of war. In June, we were 10 minutes away from an attack that likely would have cost Iranian lives. Even after that aborted strike, the President threatened Iran with ``obliteration like you've never seen before.'' Now we are ``locked and loaded.'' While it is a positive development that John Bolton is no longer whispering in the President's ear--urging regime change in Iran--this mercurial President could get us into a war before we know it, but these are my own views about the President's foreign policy. I understand others in this body do not share them, including others who voted to support this amendment previously. I want to underscore that this is not about what you think of the President. This is about defending the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution, and this is about standing up for the will of the American people. The American people do not want another endless war in the Middle East. While our military is the most capable on Earth, no conflict with Iran would be easy. Iran has twice the population of Iraq and is four times the size. Even so-called targeted strikes could escalate into a much wider war. Make no mistake, our amendment retains the President's authority to defend against any attack upon us. While the chief complaint from opponents of the amendment was that it tied the President's hands from attack, this is a false argument. The amendment expressly reserves the President's powers to defend the Nation. The Department of Defense's rules of engagement remain in place. The President's full authority as Commander in Chief to repel an attack and defend the Nation remains intact. If there are still concerns, we can continue to consult experts and refine language in conference. That is part of the regular order, but the Defense bill must prohibit an unauthorized war with Iran. For too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to decide matters of war and peace. We have hidden from the hard votes. We have allowed the Executive to fill the vacuum. We in this body need to step up to the plate and assume our constitutional responsibilities. This is not about partisan politics. This is not about tying the hands of the President in defense of our country. This vote is not even about whether you think we should or should not go to war against Iran. Even if you think military action on behalf of the downed drone or Saudi oil is justified, the place to debate and make that decision is on this floor in this Congress. It is not the decision of one man in the White House. I am making this call to our conferees: Affirm the Constitution. Affirm our sworn responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Affirm that our men and women in uniform will not be sent off to risk their lives in war unless the people's representatives make that somber decision. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to two of my fellows, Benjamin Riley and Miranda Hernandez, for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you for the recognition, Madam President. Last month, on August 22, an 86-year-old grandmother, born and raised in my hometown of Santa Fe, NM, was gunned down while she was shopping at Walmart in El Paso by a White supremacist with an AK-47 style assault weapon. The gunman said he ``wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible.'' The shooter told police he had purchased 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Less than 24 hours later, it took the shooter in Dayton, OH, only 32 seconds to kill 10 people and wound 27 others with his .223-caliber, high-capacity rifle with 100-round drum magazines. Had the Dayton police not responded immediately, the numbers of dead and injured in the crowded Dayton downtown area could have been exponentially higher. On August 31, in Odessa, TX, a shooter killed 7 and injured 25, including a 17-month-old girl, who was shot in the face. The shooter had failed a background check in 2014 because a court had found he was mentally unfit to own a gun. He purchased his AR-15 style weapon in a private gun sale, which is not subject to a background check. Assault rifles, often paired with high-capacity magazines, were used to slaughter innocents at Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Aurora, Orlando, San Bernardino, the Sutherland Springs church, and the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 10,552 gun- related deaths this year. That includes 2,681 children and teens. Mass shootings number 300. That is more than one mass shooting every day of this year. The American people support commonsense gun safety legislation in overwhelming numbers. Recent polls confirm that 90 percent or more registered voters support background checks for all gun sales--90 percent. Think about that. The American people support a ban on high- capacity magazines. They support a ban on assault weapons. They support keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. People all across the country are worried about their communities, their schools, their churches, and their children. They are worried that they will be caught in the next mass shooting, that their community will be the next El Paso, the next Sandy Hook, or the next Aztec. When I was in school, we had safety drills in the event of a nuclear strike from the Soviet Union. Children now have safety drills in the event of a shooter from within our own communities. The American people are demanding that Congress take action on this national crisis. After El Paso and Dayton, many of us implored Leader McConnell to call us back into session to vote on the gun safety bills sitting on his desk gathering dust. Leader McConnell says he will only bring bills before the Senate that the President will sign. We are the legislative body. We are sent here by our constituents to pass laws, to do their will, to protect their welfare. We do not depend on the President to pass gun safety legislation. We do not have to wait for him while the NRA lobbyists try to wear him down. He can take his cues from us for a change. We are not his lapdogs. Protecting our communities, schools, and churches cannot wait, cannot be relegated to the leader's legislative graveyard. Too many lives have been lost, and too many lives will be lost if we don't act. The fact is, too many Republican elected officials are beholden to the scandal-ridden National Rifle Association. The NRA no longer even represents gun owners; it represents the gun industry. Now we know it also represents dark campaign spending and internal corruption. There is no mystery why the Republicans refuse to take up gun safety legislation that Americans overwhelmingly support. The NRA has poured millions into campaign coffers, and they use that money to intimidate Members of Congress into opposing bills with 90 percent support nationally. This is yet one more example of why we need to overturn Citizens United and enact comprehensive finance reform. Our Democratic institutions are not representing the people. We need to pass the bills on Leader McConnell's desk, but we should not stop there. We also must halt the rise of White nationalism and White supremacy in our country. Hateful views have fueled too many of these tragedies--the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC; the Tree of Life synagogue; and in El Paso. The El Paso shooter's fear of ``the Hispanic invasion of Texas'' too closely echoes the President's repeated warnings of an ``invasion'' at our southern border. The shooter's anti-immigrant screed rings of the President's attacks on immigrants as criminals and rapists who need to be kept out of our country by a border wall. Las Cruces, NM, is only 45 minutes from El Paso. El Paso is like a sibling to us. New Mexico, like El Paso, takes great pride in our diversity. Our diversity does not divide us. It defines us. It unifies us. The President's anti- immigrant, nativist rhetoric is not only deeply offensive to New Mexicans, it also fuels the worst elements of our society--elements that now have ready access to military-style weapons. The FBI Director recently reported to Congress that the Bureau had arrested almost as many domestic terrorists as foreign terrorists this year. He said most of the racially motivated domestic terrorism cases were likely connected to White supremacy. It is up to this body to stand up to the President's anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric and unequivocally affirm this Nation's values-- equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness. It is up to this body to stand up to the NRA and stand with the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to talk about this urgent issue that faces us: climate change. Climate disruption is an existential threat to our planet--an existential threat. Scientists recognize this, so do the American people, and so does the international community. One hundred ninety- four countries and the European Union have signed the Paris Agreement, and so did the United States. Quite frankly, we shouldn't even have to argue this anymore, but for those who still don't see the evidence of climate change, it is all around us: a warming climate; recordbreaking hurricanes off the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Caribbean; unprecedented flooding in the Midwest; Native villages in Alaska actually falling into the sea; and drought and the most severe wildfires in the West we have ever seen. This is from a 2003 fire near the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico. We in New Mexico are on pins and needles every fire season now. We don't know what disaster will hit us. We know this climate catastrophe is caused by human activity. Report after report tells us we don't have any time to waste; that we need to act now. Even this administration's most recent climate analysis finds that global warming ``is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and the quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us.'' The report concludes we must act now ``to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.'' That is coming from an administration of a climate change-denying President. Yet this administration has slashed and burned every protection, program, and agreement aimed at combating climate change it can find, from the Clean Power Plan to methane control regulations, to the Paris Agreement. I can tell you who in this Congress is the administration's No. 1 accomplice: the majority leader of the Senate. The leader's legislative graveyard is littered with legislation the American people want and deserve, from improving healthcare to reforming our democracy, to commonsense measures to prevent gun violence. Climate change threatens the land, the lives, and the livelihoods of homeowners, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, fishers, and so many others all across the Nation. The majority leader's refusal to take up climate action is about as bad as congressional malfeasance gets. In May, the House of Representatives passed the first major climate legislation in nearly a decade--the Climate Action Now Act. H.R. 9 aims to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by about one-quarter by 2025. The bill ensures the United States stays in the Paris Agreement. This bill is not extreme, but it does respond to the dire situation we face. The Senate should debate this bill and pass it, but we will not. We all know the majority leader will continue to stand in its way. Due to this negligence and inaction, States are filling the void and taking it upon themselves to act. My home State of New Mexico passed legislation this year aimed at transitioning to 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Our largest utility says they can do this by 2040. It is an approach that is consistent with the renewable electricity standard bill I introduced last month. That legislation is designed to achieve at least 50 percent renewable electricity nationwide in 15 years, putting the United States on a path for a zero carbon power sector by 2050. The fact is, no American is immune from the threats of climate change, and many of our most underrepresented and vulnerable communities are at the greatest risk. For example, the most recent National Climate Assessment finds that Tribes and indigenous peoples are impacted disproportionately and uniquely. Many Native people's way of life is intimately tied to the land and water. These natural resources--that they have depended on for hundreds or even thousands of years--are being disrupted in ways that upend their communities. Their subsistence, their cultural practices, their sacred sites are all being threatened. Look at the proximity of this fire to the Taos Pueblo. It is not only sacred to the Taos people, but it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Last week, Senator Schatz and I wrote to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian leaders seeking their input on how climate change is affecting their communities. We want to foster a dialogue about what actions Congress and Federal agencies should take to mitigate the impacts. I am the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. Senator Schatz is the chair of the Special Committee on the Climate Crisis, and we were joined by all Democratic Senators on the Indian Affairs Committee. This effort should have been bipartisan--climate change is blind to political party--but it wasn't because too many Republican members just follow President Trump and the majority leader, killing anything aimed at progress. The majority leader jokes that he is the grim reaper, sounding the death knell on legislation, but climate change is no laughing matter and neither is access to healthcare for millions of Americans, or our broken campaign finance system, or the safety of American schoolchildren. The Senate must do its duty to the American people and tackle these most pressing problems. This does not mean rubberstamping legislation sent to us by the House. The Senate has a storied tradition of debate and compromise. Let's return to that tradition, have a real climate debate, and pass some real bipartisan solutions. We all came to the Senate to solve problems--problems like climate change. We didn't come here to spend time in a legislative graveyard. We don't want to be a place where good ideas come to die. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me, at the beginning, thank Senator Carper for his incredible leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has a very good bill on cleaning up PFAS. I have signed on to it, and I am going to talk about some of the damage in New Mexico. As Senator Carper knows, this is a nationwide problem that the Department of Defense has major responsibility for. This is a photograph of Art Schaap at his dairy farm in New Mexico, where he owns 4,000 head of cattle. Art's farm is located outside of Clovis, in the central part of the State, adjacent to Cannon Air Force Base. Art is a second-generation dairy farmer. He and his family worked hard to build this dairy, keep his cows healthy, and provide nutritious milk to New Mexico and the Nation's consumers, but today Art will dump 15,000 gallons of milk. That is enough milk to give 240,000 children a carton of milk with their school lunch. He will dump another 15,000 gallons tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Why is Art dumping all of this milk? Because highly toxic contaminants from Cannon Air Force Base have polluted the groundwater he uses to water his cows. The groundwater Art uses for his cows and for his family's drinking water is polluted by a group of toxic chemicals collectively known as PFAS. We know PFAS are dangerous to humans. They are associated with increased risk of liver, testicular, kidney, and pancreatic cancer. They are linked to altered puberty, endocrine disruption, pregnancy disorders, and lowered fertility. Art's dairy is ruined. He can't sell his milk. He can't sell his cows. He can't sell his property. He is spending thousands of dollars to maintain his cows and dump milk. In fact, the PFAS levels in Art's groundwater are 371 times greater than what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe. The Air Force knows it is responsible for this environmental disaster, but it claims it doesn't have the legal authority to provide clean water for Art's cows or to reimburse Art for his lost livelihood. Art is not alone. There are other New Mexico dairies located near Cannon Air Force Base that are threatened. Those dairies have spent hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to install water filters to prevent them from losing their livelihoods. The Department of Defense has identified over 400 military sites where PFAS were used. There are over 100 military sites nationwide with known PFAS contamination. This is a national problem of immense proportion. Yet this President's EPA refuses to issue drinking water standards for PFAS. It has issued only an advisory that does not have the force of law. This President's EPA has failed to even list these chemicals as hazardous substances eligible for Superfund cleanup. Our farmers and rural America deserve better--much better. Although the Air Force claimed it had no authority to provide relief, the then-head of the Air Force, Secretary Heather Wilson, assured me in a hearing, under oath, the Air Force would work with me on legislation to secure that authority for the Air Force. Contrary to that assurance, the Air Force did not work with us on that legislation. They made it clear they don't even want the authority to help farmers like Art. So, in March, I introduced the PFAS Damages Act--along with Senator Heinrich and Representatives Lujan, Torres Small, and Haaland--to ensure compensation for those hurt and to make sure those contaminated sites were cleaned up. I also joined Senator Carper's bipartisan PFAS Action Act of 2019 that requires EPA to establish PFAS as hazardous substances eligible for Superfund cleanup funds. Clean water is not and should not be a partisan issue. New Mexico is a patriotic State and honors its military bases, but the Department of Defense caused this contamination and needs to make it right. Senator Heinrich was able to include our bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Senate passed by an overwhelming margin of 86 to 8 in June. It looked like relief--relief owed to Art and others unfairly hurt--would be on the way, but 2 days ago, on Tuesday, the President threatened to veto the entire Defense bill if it gets to his desk with provisions to help farmers like Art and to clean up PFAS contamination. That is a $750 billion bill for national security and defense he is threatening to veto because it requires cleanup of a known pollutant. Without a doubt, this is one of the most outrageous veto threats I have ever witnessed in 30 years in Congress--vetoing the Defense bill over help for farmers facing ruin? It is shameful. Republican leadership in the Senate and the House should join us and make it clear to the President that this is one veto that will be overridden. On top of all of this, the President is asking the Senate to confirm Peter Wright, a top lawyer from Dow Chemical--one of the largest chemical companies in the world and the one that manufactured PFAS--to run the EPA toxic cleanup office. This nomination is more filling the swamp by this administration, more foxes guarding the henhouse. EPA has slow-walked designating PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund Program Mr. Wright wants to oversee. Mr. Wright has recused himself from matters relating to Dow Chemical and therefore will provide no leadership on this pressing issue. The American people deserve a nominee who will clean up current PFAS contamination and prevent future contamination. Mr. Wright can give no such assurance, and I will be voting no on his nomination. I call upon the President to nominate someone who will commit to tackling this issue with the urgency it deserves and to withdraw his shocking veto threat so innocent farmers like Art can save their families' livelihoods. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I very much appreciate being joined on the floor by Senator Kaine and Senator Merkley. I appreciate Senator Kaine's very wise words. I think all of us are here standing up to hold the President accountable. We believe he should follow and obey the Constitution. I rise to call upon this body to do its duty, to assume its constitutional responsibility, and to make it clear that the President cannot wage war against Iran without congressional authorization. Whether you are in favor of giving the President that authorization or whether, like me, you are opposed, everyone in this Chamber should vote in favor of our bipartisan amendment because a vote in favor is a vote to fulfill our sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. I appreciate that at long last the Senate will finally have this debate; that we will finally take this vote because these matters of war and peace are among the most consequential responsibilities that fall to Congress. These are the hard votes, and we must step up to take them. I am proud to partner with Senators Kaine, Paul, Merkley, Durbin, Murphy, and Lee in this effort and to call upon Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities. After years of abdicating our responsibilities on matters of war, this entire body must stand up and show that we will not roll over for an unauthorized, unconstitutional war. We must pass this amendment. This dangerous course with Iran began last May when the President unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. This hard-fought diplomatic achievement denied Iran the nuclear material required to even begin work on a nuclear weapon. Since this administration turned away from diplomacy and resorted to a maximum pressure campaign to box in Iran, the risk of war has steadily risen. Just last week, we were 10 minutes away from a strike on Iran, 10 minutes from a nightmare of escalation in the Gulf. This week, the President threatened Iran. I am quoting his words here--these are pretty strong words--he said to Iran: I threaten them with ``great and overwhelming force,'' and he used the word ``obliteration.'' That is not diplomacy; that is a drumbeat toward war without congressional approval. Tensions are the highest they have been in many years, and the risk of a costly miscalculation grows day by day. Just days ago, the President falsely claimed he does not need congressional approval to launch strikes against Iran. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution could not be clearer: It is Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to ``declare war.'' This is not a close call; the Founders placed this responsibility squarely on our shoulders. The consequences of going to war are profound, so this decision rests with the people's representatives, not one person--not even one President. It is time that Congress confront the administration's rejection of diplomacy. Our amendment prohibits funding for military action against Iran without congressional authorization. It does not prohibit war altogether; it prohibits an unconstitutional war, a war that has not been authorized by Congress. We must be accountable to the American people and to our men and women in uniform whose lives would be on the line. Our soldiers are brave enough to face the danger of war. If my friends in this Chamber believe they should, we should be brave enough to be held accountable for that decision. Some have claimed that this amendment would prohibit the President from defending the United States against attack. That is wrong. It is completely false. This amendment and the War Powers Act incorporated as part of it allow the United States to act in self-defense. I am going to quote from our amendment. The amendment clearly states that it shall not be interpreted ``to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend against an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' It is explicit. The United States may defend itself against an attack by Iran. The claim that the military's hands would be tied in the event of an emergency has no basis and cannot be used as an excuse to vote against the amendment. I am heartened, as Senator Kaine was and as I am sure Senator Merkley will also say, that Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership will finally allow debate and a vote on this amendment. This is what the American people want and deserve. Over the years, Democratic and Republican Presidents alike have steadily encroached upon Congress's war powers, and Congress has tacitly allowed that encroachment. I stood up to President Obama when he threatened to attack Syria without authorization, and so did many of my colleagues. I am standing up again now because the administration's reckless actions have brought us to the precipice of war. Mr. Bolton and Secretary Pompeo's failed strategy has led directly to these heightened tensions, to the brink of war, with no benefits to show for their tactics. The administration has reimposed and tightened sanctions on Iran three times--sanctions we agreed not to impose if Iran agreed not to develop nuclear capabilities. Secretary Pompeo placed a dozen conditions on negotiations and then withdrew them. Just this week, at the same time that Advisor Bolton claims we will talk with Iran anytime, the President sanctions the lead diplomat in Iran and tweets out his threat of obliteration, shutting the door on any diplomatic overtures. This ping-pong diplomacy, manufactured crisis, and go-it-alone posture further diminish our world's standing and credibility. None of the signatories to the Iran nuclear agreement, including our closest allies, backs us in what we are doing. This reckless diplomacy is dangerously reminiscent of the run-up to war with Iraq. But any war with Iran, with its military capability, proxy forces, and a population of 80 million living in a geographically perilous region, would be more disastrous and more costly than Iraq. Yet we continue to march up to the brink. According to the President's tweet last week, he stopped a strike against Iran that he had already ordered because he learned at the last minute that 150 lives were at stake. I know I am not alone in being deeply alarmed at this decisionmaking--national security decisionmaking process. I know Members on both sides of the aisle share my concerns. We must assert our constitutional authority. We must tell the President and affirm to the American people that we will assume our constitutional responsibility. And we must do so now before, through miscalculation, mistake, or misjudgment, our Nation finds itself in yet another endless war. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Udall amendment No. 883.